mirrorless camera's (Page 3): Both of your comments are misleading and wrong. Mirrorless cameras see through the lens for you and present the image in electronic format. In many ways...

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

speters wrote:

(remember seeing a finger in front of the subject in some peoples old photos, that's because they could not see it, because mirrorless cameras do not let you see through the lens)!

Both of your comments are misleading and wrong. Mirrorless cameras see through the lens for you and present the image in electronic format. In many ways the image it presents is better than the one you see through a DSLR lens. You won't see any unexpected fingers in images from mirrorless cameras. The old photos you are talking about were taken with twin lens reflex cameras or view cameras where the photographer looked through a different lens than the one used to take the picture.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

speters wrote:

??...No, they do not have a mirror and do not let you see through the lens!

BS. I assure you the image on my EVF and OLED display are EXACTLY what the lens sees. Even better — I see the results of all the menu settings used by the JPEG processor. (If I like the JPEG, I’ll love the raw file conversion in Lightroom or SilkyPix.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

speters wrote:

(remember seeing a finger in front of the subject in some peoples old photos, that's because they could not see it, because mirrorless cameras do not let you see through the lens)!

Those old photos have absolutely no relevance to mirrorless cameras. If you make any “finger over the lens” boo-boo, you’ll be staring at your finger through the EVF or OLED/LCD display.

No you aren’t PERSONALLY or DIRECTLY looking through the lens. But you are seeing a processed version of precisely what the lens sees. Arguably, that’s better than a reflex view, because you can adjust exposure and processing parameters to get the look you want.

User ID

Martin wrote:

Does anyone know if mirrorless cameras see
through the lens if they do not have a mirror.
Is what you see what you get?

Please explain

SLRs really do "see thru the lens". A live
view system doesn't actually "see thru".
The sensor sees thru, and the viewfinder
shows an image output from the sensor.

In practice this is a superior version of
seeing thru the lens, even tho in a strict
literal sense you are not "seeing thru" it.

`

Bill_de Loc: US

With my binoculars I figure I am looking through the lenses.

I always thought that with my SLRs and DSLRs I was looking at an image reflected on to a focusing screen, not through the lens. That image from the focusing screen has to be flipped in a prism.

Just a thought.

--

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Bill_de wrote:

With my binoculars I figure I am looking through the lenses.

I always thought that with my SLRs and DSLRs I was looking at an image reflected on to a focusing screen, not through the lens. That image from the focusing screen has to be flipped in a prism.

Just a thought.

--

The image had to come through the lens to get to a focusing screen

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

User ID wrote:

SLRs really do "see thru the lens". A live
view system doesn't actually "see thru".
The sensor sees thru, and the viewfinder
shows an image output from the sensor.

In practice this is a superior version of
seeing thru the lens, even tho in a strict
literal sense you are not "seeing thru" it.

What is seen through the lens is not what is seen after PP - so what's the point of this discussion? If you wish to see and record what you saw through the lens then it is SOOC JPGs that are needed.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Bill_de wrote:

With my binoculars I figure I am looking through the lenses.

I always thought that with my SLRs and DSLRs I was looking at an image reflected on to a focusing screen, not through the lens. That image from the focusing screen has to be flipped in a prism.

Just a thought.

--

Actually, even binoculars have prisms in them to reverse the image coming through the lens too.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Toment wrote:

At 120fps in my a6500/, I don’t see a delay. At 60, it’s very minor.
Hope this helps

Same with the E-M1 mrII; At 120fps, I don’t see a delay. At 60fps, it’s really very minor.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Linda From Maine wrote:

Both my Panasonic G7 and Olympus EM-10 show the real exposure; that's one of the benefits of a mirrorless camera. Check your settings (one of mine came with that feature set to off).

There are many viewfinder settings that can be made to help one to make the photographs one wants. One Olympus setting blinks the areas of overexposure as orange and the underexposed areas as blue (occassionally I have used this setting). The way my viewfinder is set right now, overexposed and extremely overexposed look basically the same: washed out and whitish. But the exposure readouts are the real indicator as to how badly. What I was trying to do was not possible at 2 or 4 second handheld exposures. To get an exposure within a stop of proper exposure, I was going to have to drop my exposure under a 1/2 second and lose the type of movement I was trying to capture. And, of course, both the viewfinder image and the exposure readouts indicated that. Once one likes the viewfinder image, press the button to save it. That is the one you will print out to look great on one's wall.

Bill_de Loc: US

wdross wrote:

Actually, even binoculars have prisms in them to reverse the image coming through the lens too.

I didn't know that. Thanks for reminding me that we are never too old to learn.

--

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

mcveed wrote:

Both of your comments are misleading and wrong. Mi... (show quote)

I think you have made a point that has been missed here. Perhaps the OP was really concerned with this separate viewing issue and was asking if the image seen in the view finder was an image obtained through the primary picture taking lens as opposed to a separate and independent viewing system as in old direct optical view finders (they had a separate lens above the cameras lens more or less lined up with the lens that would be used in taking the picture.) With these lenses, you could put your finger in front of the camera lens and not see it when shooting. In a DSLR (or most "reflex" cameras except a twin lens reflex) it is through the lens and reflected to the eye. In a mirrorless it is also through the lens but delivered electronically.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Most of the info re viewfinders in this topic has been repeated (in this thread) at least a dozen times. Would it not be a good idea for contributors to read every one elses replies before repeating what has already been said - turning the discussion from interesting to boring?

Bill_de Loc: US

Delderby wrote:

Most of the info re viewfinders in this topic has been repeated (in this thread) at least a dozen times. Would it not be a good idea for contributors to read every one elses replies before repeating what has already been said - turning the discussion from interesting to boring?

A good thought, but your post is a waste. You are singing to the choir. The folks you want to be addressing are those who will never bother to read it.

Maybe if you use BOLD RED LETTERS you will get their attention.

--

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Delderby wrote:

Most of the info re viewfinders in this topic has been repeated (in this thread) at least a dozen times. Would it not be a good idea for contributors to read every one elses replies before repeating what has already been said - turning the discussion from interesting to boring?

Bill_de wrote:

A good thought, but your post is a waste. You are singing to the choir. The folks you want to be addressing are those who will never bother to read it.

Maybe if you use BOLD RED LETTERS you will get their attention.

--

Or Delderby could simply
1) say what he/she thinks is being repeated without expansion as a way of defending the statement
2) actually add something to the discussion instead of trying to derail it
3) simply not say anything at all.